You're trying to make this into a rich vs poor. I have put up links showing how absurd the change in wealth is now, but we both know that even with a 100% tax rate on the rich we still need austerity. The poor are simply taking more wealth than exists and the deficit can only be eradicated by giving them less.
Doppel, some inconvenient facts:
- Just because fair taxes won't entirely address budget issues doesn't mean they aren't important to do. NO one thing will do so, so we should do nothing?
- The budget proposal that balances the budget fastest is the Progressive budget, and it doens't have 'austerity'. It's not 'the poor' who are 'taking too much'.
Fact is, there is all kinds of wealth - being hoarded at the top. The poor are the problem, and spending more for the people helps the economy as well.
- Democrats are the only party that has ever turned huge deficits into a balanced budget.
Republicans are the only party that has ever turned a balanced budget into huge deficits in peacetime.
- Economic growth, the stock market, unemployment, incomes and other economic indicators all do much better under Democratic administrations nearly all the time - especially when Democrats have a super-majority in Congress as well. Our nation has done very well from the Democratic investments in the people of America and the infrastructure.
Not so much when the Republicans allow for wealth to be hoarded at the top, extracted with casino finance instead of invested for the good of the country.
This IS a rich versus poor thing, and the poor are not the problem. The rich paying more taxes and a more balanced distribution of wealth are very important for the people.
We don't need 'austerity', we need to reduce bad spending, we need efficiences such as single-payer healthcare, we need the wealth of the country not hoarded by a few.